Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Israel Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Thats not a nice word
battar    11/27/2008 2:49:27 PM
I've been reading the press reports about the attacks in India, and it seems most reporters seem to think the perpetrators are "militants", or just "gunmen". Throw grenades in hotel lobbies, shoot civillians at random, take hostages, murder dozens of people - thats not enough to be branded a "terorist" by the British and US press. I wonder what their definition of terrorism is?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
battar    Gordon and moon on substance   11/27/2008 3:02:35 PM
I just read the comments from world leader on the BBC website. Lots of big names condem the attacks in India.  But the condemnation by UK prime minister Gordon Brown and UN leader Ban-Ki Moon are the ONLY ones which do not include the words "terrorist" or "terrorism".  What is the matter with tthese people? Do they think that if they don't call a spade a spade, it will quietly walk away? Or are they afraid of offending someone?
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       12/27/2008 4:37:38 PM

I've been reading the press reports about the attacks in India, and it seems most reporters seem to think the perpetrators are "militants", or just "gunmen". Throw grenades in hotel lobbies, shoot civillians at random, take hostages, murder dozens of people - thats not enough to be branded a "terorist" by the British and US press. I wonder what their definition of terrorism is?
A terrorist is a citizen or foreigner who participates in an attack which results in death and considerable destruction of property in the UK or the US respectively.

 
Quote    Reply

00_Chem_AJB    Answer   12/27/2008 5:31:20 PM

I just read the comments from world leader on the BBC website. Lots of big names condem the attacks in India.  But the condemnation by UK prime minister Gordon Brown and UN leader Ban-Ki Moon are the ONLY ones which do not include the words "terrorist" or "terrorism".  What is the matter with tthese people? Do they think that if they don't call a spade a spade, it will quietly walk away? Or are they afraid of offending someone?


Of course you then get the "righteous" gallery who say as we cause loss of innocent life and destruction of property we are terrorists, though they forget the average solider actually feels remorse for the loss of innocent life, and in some cases will be prosecuted. Terrorists have no remorse and are praised not punished for their wanton actions by their leaders.
 
Then you get the nutter gallery who declare these terrorists as freedom fighters for a righteous cause, to them it seems murder is ok, they have no place in a civil society.
 
Quote    Reply

AdvanceAustralia    Two answers   12/30/2008 4:55:42 AM
1. In the eyes of most journalists there are no terrorists. They are all figments of George Bush's imagination drummed up as an excuse to steal Iraq's oil.
 
2. When it comes to the politicians, terrorists can only be referred to as such if they originate from somewhere the politicians are comfortable with attacking. eg Afghanistan. A politician knows if he calls someone a terrorist the journalists might wake up and expect "something be done about it". If the bad guys originate from an ally (Saudi or Pakistan - and with "friends" like these who needs enemies) or a nuclear power (Pakistan) then forget it. The terrorists are put in the too hard basket, ignored, and it is hoped they will go away.
 
This terrorism gig will just continue until 1) we have enough journalists calling a spade a spade and demanding something be done, and 2) we have politicians with intestinal fortitude.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull       1/4/2009 6:29:00 PM

1. In the eyes of most journalists there are no terrorists. They are all figments of George Bush's imagination drummed up as an excuse to steal Iraq's oil.

 

2. When it comes to the politicians, terrorists can only be referred to as such if they originate from somewhere the politicians are comfortable with attacking. eg Afghanistan. A politician knows if he calls someone a terrorist the journalists might wake up and expect "something be done about it". If the bad guys originate from an ally (Saudi or Pakistan - and with "friends" like these who needs enemies) or a nuclear power (Pakistan) then forget it. The terrorists are put in the too hard basket, ignored, and it is hoped they will go away.

 

This terrorism gig will just continue until 1) we have enough journalists calling a spade a spade and demanding something be done, and 2) we have politicians with intestinal fortitude.


Or we take Shakespeare's advice regarding lawyers, applied to journalists and politicians.
 
 
swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply

sofa       1/4/2009 6:31:20 PM
british and US press owned by many saudis.      dhimmitude.
militants today.
freedom fighters next years.
 
 
Quote    Reply

AdvanceAustralia       1/5/2009 4:30:37 AM




1. In the eyes of most journalists there are no terrorists. They are all figments of George Bush's imagination drummed up as an excuse to steal Iraq's oil.



 



2. When it comes to the politicians, terrorists can only be referred to as such if they originate from somewhere the politicians are comfortable with attacking. eg Afghanistan. A politician knows if he calls someone a terrorist the journalists might wake up and expect "something be done about it". If the bad guys originate from an ally (Saudi or Pakistan - and with "friends" like these who needs enemies) or a nuclear power (Pakistan) then forget it. The terrorists are put in the too hard basket, ignored, and it is hoped they will go away.



 



This terrorism gig will just continue until 1) we have enough journalists calling a spade a spade and demanding something be done, and 2) we have politicians with intestinal fortitude.






Or we take Shakespeare's advice regarding lawyers, applied to journalists and politicians.

 

 

swhitebull


Very tempting...
 
At the very least these people, given the influence they have in society, should be held to the same standards of behaviour and integrity as are other professions. The medical fraternity being an example.
Cheers.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics